Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The verb 'list' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, does not require authentication, or any other behavioral details. For a simple read operation, this is minimally sufficient, but it doesn't disclose any additional constraints or return format.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the action. It has no fluff and communicates the essential information efficiently.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It specifies the exact scope ('all 8') and what is included ('algorithms and status'). No additional information is needed for an agent to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are zero parameters, so the schema already covers everything. The description doesn't need to add parameter details. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and there is no reason to lower it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb (list), a specific resource (all 8 supported credential formats), and the content (algorithms and status). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like marketnow_check_domain or marketnow_translate_credential, which are different operations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not provide any when-to-use guidance or mention alternatives. It simply states what it does. There is no indication of when to choose this tool over the sibling tools, though the purpose is clear. For a simple listing tool, this might be acceptable, but explicit guidance is absent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.